MICHELE CHRISTINE BISHOP V JOSETTE MAY SOLANGE BISHOP HC AK CIV2007-404-1435

MICHELE CHRISTINE BISHOP V JOSETTE MAY SOLANGE BISHOP HC AK CIV2007-404-1435

The settlement deed did not create a present beneficial interest in the respondent's home; clause (c) is a testamentary promise/limitation on future gifts and does not impose a trust over the property or proceeds now, therefore the applicant cannot show an arguable beneficial interest in specific land under s137 and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-c319a17c_4449_406c_a00f_9b70c700e22e.pdf
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Michele Christine Bishop; Respondent/defendant: Josette May Solange Bishop; Defendant: Peter Joseph O'Dea
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Caveat Application Under Land Transfer Act and Summary Judgment Proceeding / Reserved Judgment (decision Delivered)
Outcome
Application to sustain caveat dismissed; interim non-lapse order vacated; applicant withdrew interest claim in summary judgment proceeding; parties agreed no orders for costs.
Legal Topics
Caveat, Beneficial Interest in Land, Testamentary Promise, Interpretation of Settlement Deed, Summary Judgment, Costs, Interest Under Judicature Act S87
Property Law Trusts Succession Civil Procedure Land Transfer Caveat Beneficial Interest in Land Testamentary Promise +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Christine Bishop

Applicant/plaintiff

Josette May Solange Bishop

Respondent/defendant

Peter Joseph O'Dea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Caveat Application Under Land Transfer Act and Summary Judgment Proceeding / Reserved Judgment (decision Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement deed created a present beneficial interest in specific land sufficient to sustain a caveat under s137 Land Transfer Act
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of clause (c) of the settlement deed (testamentary promise)
  3. 3 Whether a contingent testamentary interest can ground a caveatable interest in the registered proprietor's home

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement deed did not create a present beneficial interest in the respondent's home; clause (c) is a testamentary promise/limitation on future gifts and does not impose a trust over the property or proceeds now, therefore the applicant cannot show an arguable beneficial interest in specific land under s137 and the caveat must be dismissed and interim non-lapse order vacated.

Court Disposition

Application to sustain caveat dismissed; interim non-lapse order vacated; applicant withdrew interest claim in summary judgment proceeding; parties agreed no orders for costs.

Orders

  • Application to sustain the caveat dismissed.
  • The interim consent order made on 7 June 2007 that directed that until further order the caveat not lapse is vacated.